Garcia (Maria) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Garcia (Maria) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Garcia (Maria) v. Dist. Ct. (State)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
general rule, we have decline to entertain writs that request review of a decision of the district court acting in its appellate capacity unless the district court has improperly refused to exercise its jurisdiction, has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Hedland), 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000). Here, the district court took jurisdiction of petitioner's appeal and denied relief on the grounds that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and the de minimus doctrine did not apply. Because the district court exercised and did not exceed its jurisdiction and did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner, its decision is not reviewable by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus. We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Garcia (Maria) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-maria-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2015.